You are on page 1of 2

Pascual vs.

Board of Examiners, 28 SCRA 344


(1969)

Facts:

Petitioner Arsenio Pascual, Jr. filed an action for prohibition against


the Board of Medical Examiners. It was alleged therein that at the initial hearing
of an administrative case for alleged immorality, counsel for complainants
announced that he would present as his first witness the petitioner. Thereupon,
petitioner, through counsel, made of record his objection, relying on the
constitutional right to be exempt from being a witness against himself.
Petitioner then alleged that to compel him to take the witness stand, the Board
of Examiners was guilty, at the very least, of grave abuse of discretion for
failure to respect the constitutional right against self-incrimination.
The answer of respondent Board, while admitting the facts stressed that it could
call petitioner to the witness stand and interrogate him, the right against selfincrimination being available only when a question calling for an incriminating
answer is asked of a witness. They likewise alleged that the right against selfincrimination cannot be availed of in an administrative hearing.
Petitioner was sustained by the lower court in his plea that he could not be
compelled to be the first witness of the complainants; he being the party
proceeded against in an administrative charge for malpractice. Hence, this
appeal by the respondent Board of Examiners.

Issue: Whether or Not compelling petitioner to be the first witness of the


complainants violates the Self-Incrimination Clause.
DECISION: Decision of the lower court of August 2, 1965 is affirmed. Petitioner Pascual could not
be compelled to the first witness of the complainants.

RATIO:
The Board of Medical examiners cannot, consistently with the
self-incriminating clause, compel the person proceeded against to take the witness
stand without his consent. A proceeding for malpractice possesses a criminal or
penal aspect in the sense that the respondent would suffer the revocation of his
license as a medical practitioner which is even a greater form of deprivation than
forfeiture of property.
While crime should not go unpunished and that the truth must be revealed,
such desirable objective should not be accomplished according to means offensive
to high sense of respect accorded to human personality. More and more in line with

the democratic creed, the deference accorded to an individual even those


suspected of the most heinous crimes is given due weight.

You might also like